Now it can die with super SMP efficiency and at double the speed!
Depending on the implementation, it could only be 1.5 times the original speed. In certain special cases, a good implementation might be able to make it die at 2.1 times the speed or greater.
Uh oh, here comes SCO!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
BSD could not have become so popular so quickly without IBM taking the SCO code, putting it in Linux where the BSD people took GPL code put it under BSD license and then.... and anyway, this is based on Minix, because no one person could have written BSD, and AT&T probably would sue them for this anyway. This is hurting american economic... GPL is communistic... and Alex de Tocqueville said that... BSD is dying anyway..
Oh man. I just give up.
Re:No SMP? Huh?
by
thanasakis
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Re:No SMP? Huh?
by
jellomizer
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well OpenBSD has a different set of priorities then Linux. OpenBSD philosophy is to do it and do it well make absolutely sure that it is secure. This strong focus on security slows down a lot of development and thus keeping OpenBSD from the leading edge of technology. Now that a lot of SMP technology has matured and proven its worth it is now time for an OpenBSD implementation. Being on the leading edge is nice. But when you have a solution that must absolutely has to be running and secure there is no shame on being a little behind the times in technology.
-- If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:No SMP? Huh?
by
life4m
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
No, SMP was only absent in OpenBSD. It was just not a priority for the project. Nevertheless, it is a welcome addition.
Can anyone "in the know" shed some light about the qualities of the OpenBSD code? How does OpenBSD's SMP model compare to fine-grained locking, such as in FreeBSD-CURRENT?
When I see how much effort and trouble has gone and is going into locking down the FreeBSD kernel, I am guessing that OpenBSD's SMP support will be fairly primitive to start with. Or are there heavy ports from FreeBSD?
Re:No SMP? Huh?
by
Morth
·
· Score: 4, Informative
*BSD had (useful) IPv6 long before Linux thanks to kame. OpenBSD is also the last of them to get SMP support, even if it's pretty fresh in NetBSD too (a year or so).
Re:No SMP? Huh?
by
Shakrai
·
· Score: 4, Informative
haha nice try, 4.x DOES have smp.
I have mod points so I actually researched the AC to see if he was right or wrong. Rather then waste them on an AC though I figured I'd actually post a link to back up his claim: FreeBSD Symmetric MultiProcessor Kernel.
-- I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man. We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:No SMP? Huh?
by
mikael_j
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Nice troll, FreeBSD 4.x does have SMP although it's pretty inefficient. 5.x has much better SMP but it's currently labeled "new technology release" and they recommend 4.x for production servers. 5.x is quite stable though..
FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE #7: Fri Mar 12 15:22:05 EST 2004 xxxxxxx@xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx:/usr/src/sys/compile/DERW OODSMP Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz CPU: Pentium III/Pentium III Xeon/Celeron (497.44-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x673 Stepping = 3 Features=0x383fbff<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE, CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,MMX,FXSR, SSE> real memory = 1073733632 (1048568K bytes) avail memory = 1039605760 (1015240K bytes) Changing APIC ID for IO APIC #0 from 0 to 2 on chip Programming 24 pins in IOAPIC #0 IOAPIC #0 intpin 2 -> irq 0 FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor motherboard: 2 CPUs cpu0 (BSP): apic id: 0, version: 0x00040011, at 0xfee00000 cpu1 (AP): apic id: 1, version: 0x00040011, at 0xfee00000 io0 (APIC): apic id: 2, version: 0x00170011, at 0xfec00000
Re:Time to move openbsd.org to OpenBSD then ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Informative
That's actually crap. They use the university of alberta's server as it has more bandwidth available to it than their own connection.
Re:No SMP? Huh?
by
Octorian
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Also, I belive that NetBSD already has SMP support (not sure when it went in there, though). So does Darwin, of course.
Re:Time to move openbsd.org to OpenBSD then ...
by
zyche
·
· Score: 5, Informative
RTFFAQ. http://openbsd.org/faq/faq8.html#wwwsolar is
"www.openbsd.org and the main OpenBSD ftp site are hosted at a SunSITE at the University of Alberta, Canada. These sites are hosted on a large Sun system, which has access to lots of storage space and Internet bandwidth. The presence of the SunSITE gives the OpenBSD group access to this bandwidth. This is why the main site runs here."
And even given this, ftp.openbsd.org is usually very slow around release time.
Multiple Niches
by
Mark_MF-WN
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Yeah, the whole BSD vs Linux conflict is ridiculous. There are a lot of niches out there in the software world, and Linux can't fill them ALL. Linux is nice on the desktop, handheld, and cluster, but the BSDs seem well suited for firewalls, routers, and other kinds of always-on equipment. OpenBSD in particular seems useful for bastion hosts, because of its rock-solid security. And of course, we still need Windows for hardcore gaming.
The point? Niches -- there are a bunch of them. Although I'm a loyal Linux user, I love the OpenBSD project. It contributes a great deal of useful software and bugfixes that help the whole community.
Re:No SMP? Huh?
by
Tranzig
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The bigger news here, for me, is that Linux just jumped way up on my totem pole of respect.
I wonder where Windows NT is on your totem pole, because it had SMP support years before Linux 2.0. And ACPI support and journalizing filesystem support and modules (drivers) support and so on... I know I will be modded down for such blasphemy.
Anyways OpenBSD has (at least had last year) scalability issues, it scales pretty bad, and it needs to be solved ot get SMP really effective.
Faulty Assumption?
by
SteveM
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
They really need to stop assuming everyone who reads/. knows it all.
They don't assume you know it all. They do assume you are smart enough to do some research and find info on stuff you don't understand.
How hard is it to google "SMP"?
SteveM
OpenBSD commands respect...
by
emil
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...quite easily. Examine Red Hat's errata list for AS3, then look at OpenBSD's errata. I assume that you will see a rather conspicuous difference in the quantity of changes?
Granted, this list is not entirely fair, as many ports and packages have bug fixes, which would push up OpenBSD's count. However, OpenBSD includes a great deal in the base distribution (SSH, Apache, Sendmail, etc.) that comprises what they assert to be audited, secure code.
To me, the ability to deploy a server and then spend minimal effort with security patches is more important than SMP. YMMV.
Re:No SMP? Huh?
by
Chreo
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Perhaps you should do your research a bit more thoroughly next time. The link you are referring to is about FreeBSD SMPng (ng = next generation, implying a previous generation). SMPng is a core tech of FreeBSD 5.x but SMP has been a feature for 4.x a long time.
From the page you linked:
FreeBSD supports Symmetric MultiProcessor kernels in the following releases:
Life is what happened when Good Intentions met Harsh Reality (the brother of the more infamous Chaos).
Get informed plix...
by
CptnHarlock
·
· Score: 5, Informative
OpenBSD is NOT premirely a webserever. It can and is used as one (I do it), but its main use is as a firewall. It even got voted as "best application for firewalling" by the MS crowd..:)
I've been aware of OpenBSDs lack of SMP since 2000 when I installed it on a double PentiumPro 180 Mhz. I Thought it was weird it didn't have SMP since Linux and FreeBSD had it but after some reading I accepted the desision.
I guess the OpenBSD guys went for SMP considering the double core desktop processors gaining more ground. Am I correct?
Cheers...
-- $HOME is where the.*shrc is -- silver_p
Re:Get informed plix...
by
jimi1283
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Ok, I have mod points and I have to comment on this. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the OpenBSD team does not do anything at the whim of the bitching masses. Did you not read the recent mailing list thread about the decision to stop updating Apache in the ports tree??? And what about when they removed ipf???
Theo may be a hard headed son of a bitch but he takes care of buisness and is not swayed by popular opinion. This is not a sudden development, there were articles a year ago about how the OpenBSD team was looking for a full time programmer to work on SMP.
This has been planned, and when OpenBSD executes a plan they execute it well.
The initiative to ADD SMP to OpenBSD (and the announcement that "a full time developer was working on it")
occurred less than 4 months ago. It took FreeBSD years to get SMP "right", during an adolesence where stability seriously suffered.
Neither NetBSD nor OpenBSD have a significant fraction of the user base of FreeBSD (and an infinitessimal share compared to Linux), and neither NetBSD nor OpenBSD have comparably-sized development teams. FreeBSD SMP had antecedants to build on as well. So logic dictates that it should take longer for OpenBSD SMP to be "ready".
OpenBSD went through a comparable architecture change when they swapped virtual memory systems a few years ago, and several subsequent major releases of OpenBSD had serious VM stability problems (many of them synchronization issues). SMP is even harder (and more of it involves synchronization).
So, is there some mitigating factor here that would convince anyone who was paying attention to deploy a mission-critical system on SMP OpenBSD in 2004?
Re:Not so fast...
by
cubidou
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Since OpenBSD SMP support is mostly NetBSD's plus code style changes, I'd say it only took 4 months to import what was started 3 or 4 years ago by Bill Studenmund for NetBSD.
Oh, and I forgot, removal of all ACPI code, too.
That means OpenBSD won't work with MP computers that have a broken MPBIOS or simply require MPACPI (like most, if not all, HyperThreading processors do).
Re:No SMP? Huh?
by
Alioth
·
· Score: 4, Informative
OpenBSD's focus is vastly different from Linux's (I use both, and I use them where appropriate). OpenBSD's primary focus has been on security and correctness of the implementation. Compare OpenBSD's pf with Linux's iptables - pf is so much more powerful and useful than iptables the difference is like night and day. The OpenBSD pf has security features that cost large sums of money in the closed source world.
SMP simply is not a priority for OpenBSD. The kind of uses OpenBSD is put to hardly ever requires it, so it's not in the least surprising that they are only just implementing it now.
FreeBSD The most powerful x86 open source Unix
OpenBSD The most secure open source Unix available
NetBSD The most portable open source Unix available
Linux The most popular open source Unix
Slashdot Mirror
Now it can die with super SMP efficiency and at double the speed!
:)
Just kidding, mods don't hurt me
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
BSD could not have become so popular so quickly without IBM taking the SCO code, putting it in Linux where the BSD people took GPL code put it under BSD license and then.... and anyway, this is based on Minix, because no one person could have written BSD, and AT&T probably would sue them for this anyway. This is hurting american economic... GPL is communistic... and Alex de Tocqueville said that... BSD is dying anyway..
Oh man. I just give up.
Yes: ipv6 ports for freebsd
haha nice try, 4.x DOES have smp.
Well OpenBSD has a different set of priorities then Linux. OpenBSD philosophy is to do it and do it well make absolutely sure that it is secure. This strong focus on security slows down a lot of development and thus keeping OpenBSD from the leading edge of technology. Now that a lot of SMP technology has matured and proven its worth it is now time for an OpenBSD implementation. Being on the leading edge is nice. But when you have a solution that must absolutely has to be running and secure there is no shame on being a little behind the times in technology.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
No, SMP was only absent in OpenBSD. It was just not a priority for the project. Nevertheless, it is a welcome addition.
Can anyone "in the know" shed some light about the qualities of the OpenBSD code? How does OpenBSD's SMP model compare to fine-grained locking, such as in FreeBSD-CURRENT?
When I see how much effort and trouble has gone and is going into locking down the FreeBSD kernel, I am guessing that OpenBSD's SMP support will be fairly primitive to start with. Or are there heavy ports from FreeBSD?
*BSD had (useful) IPv6 long before Linux thanks to kame. OpenBSD is also the last of them to get SMP support, even if it's pretty fresh in NetBSD too (a year or so).
haha nice try, 4.x DOES have smp.
I have mod points so I actually researched the AC to see if he was right or wrong. Rather then waste them on an AC though I figured I'd actually post a link to back up his claim: FreeBSD Symmetric MultiProcessor Kernel.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
That's actually crap. They use the university of alberta's server as it has more bandwidth available to it than their own connection.
Also, I belive that NetBSD already has SMP support (not sure when it went in there, though). So does Darwin, of course.
RTFFAQ.r is
http://openbsd.org/faq/faq8.html#wwwsola
"www.openbsd.org and the main OpenBSD ftp site are hosted at a SunSITE at the University of Alberta, Canada. These sites are hosted on a large Sun system, which has access to lots of storage space and Internet bandwidth. The presence of the SunSITE gives the OpenBSD group access to this bandwidth. This is why the main site runs here."
And even given this, ftp.openbsd.org is usually very slow around release time.
The point? Niches -- there are a bunch of them. Although I'm a loyal Linux user, I love the OpenBSD project. It contributes a great deal of useful software and bugfixes that help the whole community.
The bigger news here, for me, is that Linux just jumped way up on my totem pole of respect.
I wonder where Windows NT is on your totem pole, because it had SMP support years before Linux 2.0. And ACPI support and journalizing filesystem support and modules (drivers) support and so on...
I know I will be modded down for such blasphemy.
Anyways OpenBSD has (at least had last year) scalability issues, it scales pretty bad, and it needs to be solved ot get SMP really effective.
They really need to stop assuming everyone who reads /. knows it all.
They don't assume you know it all. They do assume you are smart enough to do some research and find info on stuff you don't understand.
How hard is it to google "SMP"?
SteveM
...quite easily. Examine Red Hat's errata list for AS3, then look at OpenBSD's errata. I assume that you will see a rather conspicuous difference in the quantity of changes?
Granted, this list is not entirely fair, as many ports and packages have bug fixes, which would push up OpenBSD's count. However, OpenBSD includes a great deal in the base distribution (SSH, Apache, Sendmail, etc.) that comprises what they assert to be audited, secure code.
To me, the ability to deploy a server and then spend minimal effort with security patches is more important than SMP. YMMV.
Life is what happened when Good Intentions met Harsh Reality (the brother of the more infamous Chaos).
I've been aware of OpenBSDs lack of SMP since 2000 when I installed it on a double PentiumPro 180 Mhz. I Thought it was weird it didn't have SMP since Linux and FreeBSD had it but after some reading I accepted the desision.
I guess the OpenBSD guys went for SMP considering the double core desktop processors gaining more ground. Am I correct?
Cheers...
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
The initiative to ADD SMP to OpenBSD (and the announcement that "a full time developer was working on it") occurred less than 4 months ago. It took FreeBSD years to get SMP "right", during an adolesence where stability seriously suffered.
Neither NetBSD nor OpenBSD have a significant fraction of the user base of FreeBSD (and an infinitessimal share compared to Linux), and neither NetBSD nor OpenBSD have comparably-sized development teams. FreeBSD SMP had antecedants to build on as well. So logic dictates that it should take longer for OpenBSD SMP to be "ready".
OpenBSD went through a comparable architecture change when they swapped virtual memory systems a few years ago, and several subsequent major releases of OpenBSD had serious VM stability problems (many of them synchronization issues). SMP is even harder (and more of it involves synchronization).
So, is there some mitigating factor here that would convince anyone who was paying attention to deploy a mission-critical system on SMP OpenBSD in 2004?
OpenBSD's focus is vastly different from Linux's (I use both, and I use them where appropriate). OpenBSD's primary focus has been on security and correctness of the implementation. Compare OpenBSD's pf with Linux's iptables - pf is so much more powerful and useful than iptables the difference is like night and day. The OpenBSD pf has security features that cost large sums of money in the closed source world.
SMP simply is not a priority for OpenBSD. The kind of uses OpenBSD is put to hardly ever requires it, so it's not in the least surprising that they are only just implementing it now.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Read the soekris website, it puts it nicely:
FreeBSD The most powerful x86 open source Unix OpenBSD The most secure open source Unix available NetBSD The most portable open source Unix available Linux The most popular open source Unix